View Single Post
Old 06-26-2015, 10:09 AM   #46
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
Am I reading this wrong on him referring to "My Ruler" ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripin_billie View Post
Yes, he's referring to the Supreme Court, in his opinion, now being the ruler of the land. Not that he had any problem with that in the Citizens United decision.
Yeah, you're misreading him - his dissent is about this issue being solved through the democratic process. In other words, the people should rule themselves rather than having their power to decide taken away from them by the Court. Has nothing to do with God.

I take his point, but on matters of fundamental human rights, you just can't put that sort of thing to a vote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
Oh look, all you have to do is vote Huckabee and the fight is back on...
As president I will stand in the gap and join with all faith leaders to rebuild and restore the foundation of America life, marriage and religious liberty.
For some, this is akin to taking away their guns. Or closing Wal Marts in Texas.
Are you under the impression that he'd be able to do anything about it as President? A President cannot somehow cancel a Supreme Court judgment.

The best he could do would be to nominate a super-conservative judge for SC associate justice (which would mean one of the nine died with him in office), then see that person confirmed by the legislative branch (over which he has no direct control). So he'd be expecting legislators to confirm a nominee in spite of over 60% of public opinion militating against that decision (as of today - the trend suggests that it'll keep going up). Thereby committing likely political suicide, in the vast majority of cases.

Then, someone would have to bring a case that would allow for this ruling to be overturned - which will be difficult given that there will be no gay marriage bans to challenge, but I suppose Alabama could pass such a bill solely for the purpose of having a legal fight about it.

Then, he'd have to convince four other judges to join him in overturning this decision. Which will be more or less difficult depending on who is on the bench. Remember that although there are four dissenters here, judges often dissent not because they wish the RESULT had been different, but as an opportunity to warn lower court judges relying on the judgment of what its limits should be.

Good f'n luck, guy.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno

Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 06-26-2015 at 10:19 AM.
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post: